Notes of Decisions

An ease­ment is not involved in the state’s right under these sec­tions to regulate use of related adjacent land, but an ease­ment is an addi­tional right which the state may acquire by purchase or gift. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

Time factors involved are not designed to freeze land values to subsidize later acquisi­tion by the state, nor do they impose unreasonable restraints upon landowners. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

The regulatory pro­vi­sions are separate from the pro­vi­sions giving the state the right to acquire land or interests in related adjacent land, and the state does not gain an interest in land by the adop­tion of the Act. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

The state’s power to regulate is analogous to zoning restric­tions and therefore the state does not acquire an interest for which compensa­tion must be paid. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

Where wa­ter would otherwise flow through scenic wa­terway, pro­vi­sions of Scenic Water­ways Act requiring showing that proposed diversion was necessary to beneficial use applied to proposed diversion in city’s applica­tion for permit to operate hydroelectric facility. Diack v. City of Portland, 306 Or 287, 759 P2d 1070 (1988)

3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each
listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals
relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.

Stay Connected

Committed to Public Service

We will always provide free access to the current law.
In addition, we provide special support
for non-profit, educational, and government users.
Through social entre­pre­neurship,
we’re lowering the cost of legal services and increasing
citizen access.